[Steve Kline]

Of course, bogey and slop are just the raters' opinions.  There is no guarantee of consistency in the ratings, from course to course, from area to area.  I see lots of slope ratings that seem way off to me.  In particular, the tough courses like Oakmont and ANGC from the tips should have much higher bogey ratings.  Maybe the adjustments account for that.   

Its a lot more objective than that-- Ratings are based on measurements of conditions and obsaicals as set forth in comphrehensive manuels--Usually raters take the meaurements, rate the course and then may or may not play it.  Rating teams from around the US meet regularily at seminars to insure unifrom standards

That's not really objective. To determine all of this they should take actual scores from actual golfers and then form a rating a slope. That's why courses don't seem to compare as well as they should in rating or slope and why some places have good traveling handicaps.

[Tom Huckaby]

Steve:

The problem with your suggested method is that it would have to rely on competitive scores only (lest the sample be hopelessly skewed by players not using the same set of rules), and not all courses have a large enough sample size to make it reliable.  On top of that, it also could be skewed by the quality of players playing any given course.  In any case to make the method work if this is ALL that one would do, would require a massive effort beyond the capability of the majority of courses, and certainly beyond the means of any regional golf association.

In the end I firmly believe the rating system we have works.  Sure there are SOME anomalies; the system is not perfect and yes, some handicaps do end up "travelling" better than others.  But in the vast majority of courses the rating system works just fine.

One other thing:  at least here at the NCGA, if we get reports of massive score discrepancies or other things being "off", the ratings are revisited.  It's a very interesting check that I believe all associations also must do.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Dennis, you're right, there are guidelines and formulas.  So I probably was wrong about that.  Actually, maybe the problem is that the formulas are too rigid.  Maybe that's why Oakmont from the tips does not have a slope of 155, and neither apparently did Torrey Pines under U.S. Open conditions.

An objective way would be to get a whole bunch of bogey golfers to play the course, and see what they score.  Course, you run into some chicken and egg issues there.  But I think those could be handled statistically. 

Jim - you do know each of Dennis and I actually do this, right?  So you're not going to educate us about how it gets done... 

It is very objective and it is all based on formula.  Regarding slope, well... since you do understand that it is more or less measuring the DIFFERENCE in difficulty between scratch and bogey, why does it surprise you that neither Oakmont nor Torrey gets to 155?  Each of those have such high difficulty for scratch (course rating) it would require astronomical difficulty for bogey (bogey rating) to get to 155.  Oh the bogey rating will be high, for sure, as those are very tough courses and the bogey will score very high.  But since the scratch scores a lot higher than most courses also, slope doesn't get that high.

As for taking scores from a bunch playing, well... my feeling is in the vast majority of instances it would just prove out the numbers.  But as I said to Steve, it's just impractical... and most associations also are not deaf to pleas of errors.  Due to eccentricities or oddness of how they fit on the system, there are certain courses that just come out odd, for sure.  I'd say not many, but some.  And those do get addressed over time.

TH

[Bob Harris]

Steve:


In the end I firmly believe the rating system we have works.  Sure there are SOME anomalies; the system is not perfect and yes, some handicaps do end up "travelling" better than others.  But in the vast majority of courses the rating system works just fine.

One other thing:  at least here at the NCGA, if we get reports of massive score discrepancies or other things being "off", the ratings are revisited.  It's a very interesting check that I believe all associations also must do.

TH

From someone who is a course rater and was a Handicap Chairman, I agree the course rating system works very well and there are a few anomalies out there, but the handicap system may be a better explanation for players who have a good "travelling handicap". 
Like the NCGA our association monitors all net events to determine if members of a specific club have an unusual amount of success.

[Jim Nugent]

Dennis, you're right, there are guidelines and formulas.  So I probably was wrong about that.  Actually, maybe the problem is that the formulas are too rigid.  Maybe that's why Oakmont from the tips does not have a slope of 155, and neither apparently did Torrey Pines under U.S. Open conditions.

An objective way would be to get a whole bunch of bogey golfers to play the course, and see what they score.  Course, you run into some chicken and egg issues there.  But I think those could be handled statistically. 

Jim - you do know each of Dennis and I actually do this, right?  So you're not going to educate us about how it gets done... 

It is very objective and it is all based on formula.  Regarding slope, well... since you do understand that it is more or less measuring the DIFFERENCE in difficulty between scratch and bogey, why does it surprise you that neither Oakmont nor Torrey gets to 155?  Each of those have such high difficulty for scratch (course rating) it would require astronomical difficulty for bogey (bogey rating) to get to 155.  Oh the bogey rating will be high, for sure, as those are very tough courses and the bogey will score very high.  But since the scratch scores a lot higher than most courses also, slope doesn't get that high.

Tom, for Oakmont to have a slope of 155, a 20 or so handicap who drives the ball 200 yards must shoot around 106 or 107 from the tips.  That's using a course rating of 78. 

From what I've read, seen and heard about Oakmont, I think a 200-yard-driving 20 handicap might shoot around 120 from the tips.  Which would make the real slope (without the max cap) equal to around 226. 

In that recent experiment with Romo et al. at Torrey, the 8 index shot 114 from the tips.  He is a lot better than a 20 handicapper.  Makes me think a true 20, who drives the ball so short that he can only hit a 370 yard hole with two excellent shots, would get demolished at these courses. 

You see the same thing when the press plays ANGC right after the Masters.  Scoring suggests a real slope of over 200 there. 

Tiger's statement -- that a 10 handicap could not break 100 at Oakmont -- reflects the same thing.  If he's right, that is. 

I don't understand why slope is capped at 155.  Wish I understood the adjustments better, as perhaps they explain why some real real hard courses slope at less than 155. 



 

[Joe Fairey]

from my experience...


US....Oakmont ...Winged Foot (west)...dead heat... and given a
        tournament set up....The Honors comes real close

UK....Carnoustie...no questions

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()